Anything Divine in the Bible?

Brain writes:Ah Brian the ever present critic. Since you possess an sense of justice beyond that of an eternal God, tell us what the punishment for a crime should be, then tells us how you arrive at that conclusion, then tells us how you would be correct or incorrect if someone disagrees with you, which one is right or wrong and how do you condeme another for the position they hold on the decision they chose to make concerining what constitutes justice in any manner.What a sad and pathertic life to lead, where you cant even begin to demonstrate or justify not a single one of your actions. Poor ole God is only operating from a eternal perspective, based on ominiscient knowledge,how stupid he must be without intellectuals help like Brian.You cant even justify a single on one your actions against a subjective morality, yet you call fundys pathetic.Lord help us without Brians finite insight. Give me a break.Tell me Brian what are the wages of sin? Key words in this sentence, "It appears to me", wow there we go again. Please tell us where you gained this eternal perspective from being a pathetic little creature in a pathetic little galaxy?The fundy is wrong and God is evil and Brian is correct. Sounds like rationalization to me, but what do I know Im just a fundy.Tell me Brian, why dont we throw the Lion and the bear in the clink when they commit thier crimes against the deer? Is there something different about them verses us? Why stop a serial killer from his actions of killing and eating another person, maybe to Hanibal Lector this is perfectly normal behavior. What is your criteria for deciding he is wrong or inappropriate? Remember us fundys are just pathetic little people waiting for you overwhelming insight to guide us. Oh Brian please lead us.In the scriptures there are numerous examples, where God despenses justice immediately as in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts chapeter 5., same God in the NT as in the OT. Who can know the hearts and minds of men except a being that possess all knowledge. Certainly God knew that there was no repentance in thier hearts and that there possibilty never would have been. The point is that, as in the cases in the OT, the ones in the NT are the same God and the same sense of eternal justice is depensed from an eternal perspective.On more side note. I think most of us dont like Jaywills posts because they expose us for what we are, including myself, dirty little sinners.If what he writes, the scriptual support he provideds and the way in which he communicates it are not INSPIRATION, then it is just this side of it. So, from the Jaywill fan club, let me say, WHOO HOO.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes: Religious bigotry? I guess when fundies try and defend themselves from the onslaught of secular fundamentalist like yourself,we should just over looked it, as seems to be the practice on this website. By the way its woodwork not woodworks.Before I forget, we are sure that DA stands for Devils Advocate, correct? As I read through your comments, they reminded me of first year seminary discussions I used to have back in the early 70s. Its obvious you havent been debating very long.Humans govern themselves, because they have been given the ability to discern between right and wrong. This ofcourse has nothing to do with the topic at hand. The question was how does Brian decide what is right or wrong for anybody else but himself? What criteria does he use to determine that anothers behavior is evil or innapropriate. Then finally how does this finite fellow decide what the consequences should be for sin from a limited perspective as his. Go ahead and answer these questions for me DA. Again, poor debating tactics. This is not the question. The question is how can Brian denounce anyones actions as evil or bad. Whether there is a supernatural entity in the sky is another issues altogether. I will admit you have a skill for misdirection. If there is no objevtive morality no final ultimate right and wrong, then it would follow that our actions no matter how evil they may appear are nothing of the sort. And it is a contradiction of the highest order for him to even imply it in any form or fashion. If it is not then provide the criteria that allows him or others to make such proclamations.Try to stay on topic DA. If you are having trouble I and others can guide you along.So your argument is that intelligence is equivolent to morality? So, intelligence on an eternal or omnipotent level may be correct in its application of justice depending on what the eternal consequences are, correct? Atleast that is what you are implying in your argument above. Remember if you need to take this slow we can.Unfortunately, the miute or second an Atheist or agnostic opens thier mouth to condeme or denounce, from a moral perspective, they involve themselves in the worst form of self-contradiction.You brought up a good point though. If its not wrong for humans or animals to kill for food. Why is it not worng for humans to kill other humans for food, if that is thier desire. In other words why do we confine in prison a person that kills other humans for food purposes.While there is no hope that you will provide an answer that does not involve itself in contradiction, I might purpose that it is worng because an infinte, omniscient deity has determined it as immoral and given each human being this information inside ourselves. He has also given us the ability to choose between these principles in the category of freewill. Wow, you would think that a person with your lack of understanding in sciptural or moral issues would atleast try and sound intelligent. The title of the thread is,"Anything divine in the Bible", or the Bible study category, correct?Ok, simply provide the objective evidence that allows the Atheist or Agnostic to condemn any actions of others as immoral or evil. I think you see you cannot even get out of the starting gate, with the evidence you need to defend your above statement.If human intelligence implies a higher morality (as you suggest)than that of animals, then it would follow that an omnipotent deitys intelligence would imply an ultimate or overall objective morality, that allows his actions to be justified from a moral standpoint, correct? Hows that for evidence, I used your own standard of what constitues, right or wrong, applied against a real world. No its just easy to acknowledge, talent, skill and comprehensive knowledge when it is presented. Now dont be jealous DA, if you keep it up you may even develope some of his skills. But it takes alot of hard work dedication and long hours How much vision does it take to recognize that man clearly has the ability to distinquish between simple right and wrong behavior, verses that of say the animal kingdom. How much vision does it take to recognize that if you have no real objective standard of right and wrong, that one is in no position to condemn others actions, let alone Gods. Perhaps you are trying to hard to understand simple principles of reality and morality.Next time that ship comes in to port, get off and get some fresh air.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cravediver writes:Geez, give me time there European complainicus, I will. However, I think the mighty Jayman has dealt with most of it, or will Whoo hoo, go Jaywill. And where is that insightful ICANT, you need to jump in here to boy.D Bertot

Squiddy writes:Why you worthless sack of cr...... No Im just kidding it sounds like fun. Wow, Im so old now I cant even remember those days overseas, they seem like a dream now. Probably best they are remembered as a dream actually. Thanks for remembering me, it brought a tear to my eye, just kidding but it sounds like fun, there squidward. Ill get to the rest of your post later today.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes:Whoo, calm down boy. Brian is the one that made this statement to Jaywill, DA, pay attention. I was making a joke, never mind I guess you missed it. Its not important I think the secular fundamentalits here have insulting down to an art. However, I add some josting every now and then to lighten the mood. Its all in good fun, trust me Im not your enemy. Now that awful Cavediver, thats another story, ha ha. Sorry, no you didnt. Even if you consider that an answer, it falls way short of explaining how a person that does not believe in an ultimate or final objectivity or right or wrong, can question any actions others for any reason. You see DA its all subjective nonsense if the other does not exist. We are just animals of a different sort, doing what suits us. The moral majority is just a collection of subjective relativism. If another group decides otherwise, who is correct. NOw do you see? My friend there are no such things as ethics, if it is all relative. It is all relative if there is no ultimate right or wrong or ultimate objectivity. Come on DA this is first year seminary stuff. There is no way around this contradiction. If evolution is true and Gods laws are not real or applicable then it is just animals do something sdifferent than other animals. This is all very beautiful but it is also very subjective and relative and only a matter of perspective if there is no ultimate standard. What if someone like Jeffery Domer disagrees with you or Hanibal lector or any other person, who is correct and on what basis do you decide. It is an irreconcilable contradiction. Yes I do. But that is the point you can provide none for your position, correct? This is an exercise in futility outside Gods divine revelation, but happy hunting anyway. Its like C.S Lewis stated, there is no reason to talk about something being evil if there is no ultimate good.Anyhoo, have a nice day. Also, dont take my gesting to serious.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cavediver writes:Wow, you fellas really are clueless in these areas arent you. Deal with WHAT? All I have to do is simply say I disagree, to demonstrate my point. If I disagree with Ned, who is right, correct or wrong. Thats the point, nobody is right or wrong and you do not have a platform to condemn any of my actions. I have no platform to say that Jeffery Domer is a monster or evil. My suggestion is that you and Brian get a clue before you start condemning a God that has an eternal perspective on reality. You condemnation of him is simply ludicrous and illogical, because you possess no standard of what we call morality.Your kidding me. Another reason you make judgements is because it feels good. How good do you think it feels to Mr. Domer or the son of Sam to participate in thier actions, probably very good. Again, rehtoric and eloquence will not extricate you from this contradiction.
D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This is a classic example of what I was saying earlier about subjective morality. Cavediver spends the majority of his posts insulting people and condemns others when they do it. It is clear there is no objectivity even in your pathetic manner of reasoning.You wouold be better spending your time reasoning (if that is possible) than insulting. There is no high ground here CD only objectivity. If you cant answer the argument just say so.D Bertot

Wow you really cant answer the argument can you? Are you aggrivatied that I answered Noseneds post, really it was no challenge at all.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

CD writes:Oh I didnt miss anything but if I did you feel free to reproduce it, as you seem reluctant to do so. I believe that is called a smokescreen in debating, correct?You have had now four or five post to make an attempt to answer the argument I am presenting but all you choose to do is insult and be comical. Ill take that as an addmission of defeat. Again,what is your platform to condemn another humans behavior or Gods? Think you see the obvious contradiction you are involving yourself in, but dont feel bad there is no resolution to that kind of problemMy guess is that you should stay in the science department threads as you seem to understand very little about theology, morality and ethics, or how to even respond in a rational manner. Off to work, see you and others this evening. Your replies are at minimum comical.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA thanks for all your kind comments in this post. Besides my crimson tide getting smoked today, Im am otherwise in a good mood.My sense of humor is sometime missed, The Autunman can confirm this for you. Your still missing the point here, I am not saying that humans cannot contrive what they consider as morality. If fact Humans have a great ability toi invent and and make many things. However, if one chooses to declare God as evil because of this or that action, he one is acknowledging the existence of morality and then he is also admitting the possiblity that an eternal and omniscient morality exists beyond our own perspective. Now watch this.He cannnot however, deny the existence of God, absolute morality and with the same breath condemn anyone elses actions, even a being that operates in this or that fashion. This is self contradictory behavior. My only point was initially that Brian and CD have no platform from which to make such an accusation.There is no way to reconcile this type of reasoning, no matter the language CD uses. If God can go F... himself, then it would follow that God could also praise himself for such actions, if there is no absolute standard.If an alien laid claim to this region of space, saying he had owned it for 100 trillion years and he started to harvest everything on the planet including us, not acknowledging us anymore than we do bacteria on an apple when we eat it, what right or moral would we use to condemn his actions. He would not rcognize our morals anymore than we would his. Now we could not say that we have a right to this or that, or even our lives anymore than we worry about a bacterias life when consuming food, correct?Without God and an absolute standard, there is no standard that really applies that is not subjective. Anyones actions no matter how terrible to us, could not be condemned, correct? If they could, what is the standard going to be? Yes, all of them. None of them are relative if God exists. Because God is eternal and omniscient, then any edict, would be absolute. For what court would you appeal outside of these two categories. I dont know really how to make this point any clearer to you, but I will try. Self destructive behavior my friend is a relative postion, depending on a point of view. The alien that does not care about you or your life, or your morals, or your standards, will shatter your reality of ethics and morals and he would not be evil or bad for soing so, because there is no standard for him to allign himself with, other than his own. Now do you see?Without an absolute standard of morals, Albert's appraisal is nothing more than an eloquent observation of practical application, having meaning only to his and others situation. It is not morality, it is only classified as such because he and others wish to designate it as such. Dahmer (how ever you spell it) may view, the Silence of the lambs, as a documentary, while you view it as a fictional movie.Question was Albert a theist? If he was not, then he has no way to designate anything as good or evil, or even use the words. If he wants to use the words,they are only relative desgnations. I dont know what the context of his statement was, or what exacally he meant, seeing that the quote is limited in scope. Perhaps you could present it in context. Right back at you. Hope you had fun. I think Cavediver has invited me over for Christmas this year, it should be a real blast, ha ha.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

No, Ned you missed the point completely. It is how do you desribe as true evil, that for which you have no platform to make such an accusation. On what are you basing your condemnation, if there is no absolute standard? Having standards is not the same as saying they are absolute. Sure we have rules but how do you condemn with no absolute standard. You can have rules without a lawgiver, but they will be relative and if one chooses to disobey, you really have no right to condemn thier actionsD BertotD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

CD writes:Or anyone that thinks God should go f... himself, yeah your correct about the above individuals, if there is some absolute standard, and you would be right there along with them. Respect and dignity for others would require you to make a formal apology here for that comment, lets see if you are man enough, or women depending on who and what you are.By what standard are you evaluating the above peoples actions. Set it out and watch it fall, unless you are agreeing to an absolute standard or right and wrong. You have no right to condemn these people. They are doing what they thought was right in thier view. The same way you tell God to go f... himself. Were you wrong for doing this? I agree it is simple enough, however you and Ned keep ignoring the fact that, it does not matter what a group of people do or what they decide over a period of time, for any reason. I have already agreed to this point. However, if there is no absolute morality then its all just STUFF people are doing and anyone that chooses not to particapate or believe you are wrong or incorrect, is not unwarrented for doing so.And you are not justified in calling anyones actions evil, unjust, bad or whatever other term you want to throw at it.So, does absolute morality exist? Is there a standard of right and wrong that is the authority? When you answer this question, then you put yourself in one of only two possible categories. So then God is not evil for his actions. If he aliens are not then why is God. Do you understand his reasons for doing the things mentioned in the scriptures? You avoided what I was saying. My reference was not about the people of the earth primarily but the aliens, now you say they are not evil, even thought they are committing acts of murder against this little planet and remember they could care less about you or your way of thinking. So they are not evil but God with his eternal perspective is?D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

DA writes:Ned writes:Now this is exacally what I am talking about. Two people that disagree on what and where a simple ethic came form and what it constitutes. If someone comes and doesnt like the principle at all and feels no compulsion to abide by it, like alot dont, are they wrong. They are not if there is no standard. So then I repeat, by what standard do Brian and CD condemn others or God for thier actions.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

CD writes:I would recognize it if there were a standard, is there a standard CD? Are you afraid to answer the question because it will put you in a bind, I think as much.So whos actions in this instance are correct, yours or Gods? His for stoning someone or yours for telling your creator to go f... himself, or, are niether of you wrong? You see your problem its just that you are not man enough to own up to it. Now your getting it my friend, you dont have a clue what a standard of morality is without God and an absolute standard. Thanks for demonstrating my point, yet again. Your own words, examples and concepts and your inability to think clearly, betray you CDD Bertot Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Like CD, you think avoiding the question and providing examples will help your case, it wont. Let me ask this. Is there an absolute standard of right and wrong. Yes or no.Why would you tell God to go f himself, because you dont like the standard?Would you tell the Bear to go f... himself for tearing off the head of a deer. You are in a situation from whaich you cannot extricate yourself and you know it.D Bertot